defects of any of the formularies which we all alike have thought to be good enough to sign.  With more than judicial fairness, Dr. Stanley admits that the whole Thirty-nine Articles are “incomparably superior” to the “Nine Articles of the Evangelical Alliance” (p. 11), or any that would be drawn up by “the dominant factions” of our Church, or Commonwealth.  But this kind of criticism may well be postponed till the prior question is disposed of—whether we should “sign” any thing?  When the Articles and Prayer-book come to be hereafter discussed, these details may have interest with some, as parts of the literature of the “Eighteenth Century;” but at present might it not be disrespectful merely to glance at them in a sketchy way, to give pungency and interest to a somewhat barren subject?  I do not say that the highly rhetorical sentences in which praise and blame are judiciously administered by Dr. Stanley to Article 1, 5, 9, or 34, contribute nothing to the effectiveness of the pamphlet with the “general reader;” but it is obvious that with the argument, strictly speaking, they have nothing to do.

Dr. Stanley’s Three Arguments.

The Relaxation of Subscription appears, as far as I can gather, to be urged by three arguments,—the first founded the origin of the “Subscriptions” among us after the Reformation; the second, on the alleged absence of “Subscription” in the Primitive Church; and the third on the practical evils of the present state of “Subscription” in the Church and in the Universities.  If I examine each of these, I shall not, I think, have omitted any point hitherto prominently alleged in this controversy.

I.  “The Church of England, as such, recognises absolutely no Subscriptions.”  Such is Dr. Stanley’s proposition (p. 38).  The tests of membership are “incorporated in the Services to the exclusion, as it would seem, of all besides.”  It is added (p. 39)—“These other obligations were, in fact, not contemplated at the time of the first compilation of the Prayer-book and Articles, and have grown up as a mere excrescence through the pressure of political and ecclesiastical parties.  The Articles were not subscribed (by anything like general usage) till the 12th year of Elizabeth; they were then, after much hesitation and opposition, ordered to be subscribed for a special purpose,” &c.

The Reformation.

Is it possible to suppose that Dr. Stanley means this for a fair representation of the spirit and design of the Church of England, from the beginning of the Reformation to the 12th year of Elizabeth?  He writes as though the Articles were all really to be signed, and the Prayer-book all settled, and that the Church during all that time deliberately intended to leave her members such freedom of opinion as he and others would now restore.  If he does not mean this, his argument falls to the ground.  But what are the facts of the case?

Elizabeth ascended the throne at the close of the year 1558.  Every position of trust throughout the country was then held by Roman Catholics.  The bishops and the clergy were generally devoted to Rome.  The Convocation met, in two months, and drew up Articles presented to Parliament, which are described as “flat against Reformation, and subscribed by most of the University.”  Even Cambridge is said to have given her approval.  At such a crisis, it was evident that some years must elapse before any such Revision of Edward VI.’s Articles could be hoped for, as would obtain general consent.  But to represent this pause as a kind of freedom from “Subscription” enjoyed in earlier and more liberal times, to say that “the Church,” at least, was ignorant of this device, when “Subscription” to certain “Articles” was the first step which the Convocation and the Universities naturally took, immediately Elizabeth came to the throne, surprises me beyond what I like to express.  The “general reader” is entirely at the mercy of so eloquent a writer as Dr. Stanley, and it is not too much to ask that he use his power with a little generosity; or if he will not, it becomes imperative that his representations be translated into a humbler style, that the world may judge how they look.  The facts of the case are, in truth, opposed to all that Dr. Stanley’s argument requires.  Instead of the twenty years and more, which preceded Elizabeth’s 12th year, being years in which the Church of the Reformation adopted laxity as its principle, the whole of the period, from the beginning of the reign of Edward to the year 1571 (with the exception of the brief interval of Mary’s government), was occupied in a careful effort on the part of the Reformers to tie down both clergy and laity by the strictest body of ecclesiastical law, perhaps, ever attempted to be enacted in the Christian world.

The Reformatio Legum.

I refer, of course, to the “Reformatio Legum.”  The Archbishop of Canterbury, the subsequently-elect Archbishop of York, and certain suffragans; great Reformers, such as Peter Martyr and Rowland Taylour; known scholars, such as Sir John Cheke and Dr. Haddon, were engaged in this business, which was looked to as the crowning act of the Reformation of Religion.  Archbishop Parker took up the work which Cranmer had begun, and even pressed it on the reluctant Queen as far as he dared.

Subscription demanded in 1553.

The connexion of the Reformatio Legum with the Articles of our Church, and the light which they throw on each other, I need not point out to any who are acquainted with the history of our Church at that time.  The Forty-two Articles, from which our Thirty-nine were, ten years afterwards, derived, were first published in 1553.  In the November of the preceding year, Cranmer proposed that the bishops should have them at once subscribed throughout their dioceses.  The death of King Edward prevented this from being accomplished.  They were revised and subscribed by Convocation in 1563, in the name of the whole clergy of England.  The early chapters of the Reformatio Legum contain the doctrine of the Articles, and were, no doubt, intended to be an authorized exposition of them.  How strict a system was meant to be inaugurated by the Reformers may be judged by even a superficial perusal of that Book.  Heresy and blasphemy were to be punishable by death.  Adultery was to be visited with imprisonment and even banishment.  Impenitent persons were to be “handed over to the civil power.”  All this was the sort of Discipline which was waiting to be put in force as soon as the Reformers could persuade the nation to bear it;—and yet this is the supposed time when Subscription was alien from the mind of the Reformed Church!

Temporary restriction of the Clergy.
Subscription in 1564.

But during this interval of twelve years, while the bishops were doing their best to bring the clergy and people to Uniformity, and preparing them for the “Discipline” which was openly clamoured for, we find that immediately after the Articles were published, “advertisements” came out by authority further to restrain the liberty of the preachers.  In 1564, the clergy, who had by their proctors subscribed the Articles in Convocation, were required “to protest and subscribe” that they